Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Margaret Skeete: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:53, 6 December 2010 editNeptune5000 (talk | contribs)6,397 edits Margaret Skeete: delete← Previous edit Revision as of 20:02, 6 December 2010 edit undoDHanson317 (talk | contribs)9,937 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 8: Line 8:
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 07:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)</small> *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 07:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)</small>
*'''Delete''' The only source in the article is 10 sentences long, which is not substantial. Inclusion in lists is fine. ] (]) 04:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) *'''Delete''' The only source in the article is 10 sentences long, which is not substantial. Inclusion in lists is fine. ] (]) 04:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' 115 is notable as hardly anyone has reached it and she is 15th overall. ] (]) 20:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:02, 6 December 2010

Margaret Skeete

Margaret Skeete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories: